The purpose of this website is to
serve as a public resource and repository to tell the story in
complete, full, unedited detail regarding two federal lawsuits,
Walker v. United States and Walker v. Members of Congress both of
which were intended cause Congress to obey the text of Article V of
the Constitution and call an amendatory convention as required by
that article.

Because this site is an information
site, you will not find graphics, or pictures of other such
distractions. What you will find is a date-by-date public record of
everything that occurred in the federal courts regarding these two
lawsuits (and related other actions). The site does have internal
links but has no bookmarks. All of the material herein is in .pdf
format and can be read by Adobe Reader. Any interested member of the
public is invited to download any or all of the documents in this
site for further study and reference.

The two lawsuits have moved through
the court system all the way to the Supreme Court. They are
concluded. Today, Article 5.org fully supports the current activities
of Friends of an Article V Convention
a non-partisan committee composed of scholars, writers, lawyers,
judges, and other interested members of the general public. FOAVC is
made up of Americans who wish to solve the problems and questions
surrounding an amendatory convention so that an important, if not the
most important component of our Constitution can occur and allow the
people of this nation to peaceably assemble, debate and propose
amendments to our Constitution in a lawful, constitutional manner. We
urge everyone to visit their site. The convention represents the
Founder's most cherished gift; a mechanism placed in the Constitution
where our most fundamental American right can be exercised: the right
"to alter or abolish our form of government" if its actions
should become destructive of our right of "life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness." Right now that right is being stifled by
a recalcitrant Congress and that is...

The Story of Walker

The story of the two lawsuits,
Walker v. United States, filed in December, 2000 and Walker v.
Members of Congress, filed in September, 2004. Walker v. United
States remained a federal district court case. Walker v. Members of
Congress was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Walker v. United States was the
first lawsuit in history to directly address the question of whether
Congress was required to obey the text of the Constitution and call a
convention when the states applied which the evidence in the suit
clearly showed they had, or whether, despite the language of the
Constitution which the Founders termed "peremptory"
Congress could ignore, or veto, the direct text of the Constitution
and refuse to call such a convention even though the states had applied.

In Walker v. United States, an
over-length brief citing over two hundred Supreme Court rulings
favoring the position of the plaintiff, Bill Walker of Seattle,
Washington, was presented in district court. The court refused to
read the document and ultimately, citing Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S.
433 (1939) established that under the court's political question
doctrine, Congress was empowered to ignore or veto the direct text of
the Constitution.

Following the court decision, an
amicus brief was filed with the Supreme Court of the United States in
the cases, McConnell v Federal Election Commission (02-1674 et al.).
The purpose of the brief was twofold: (1) To serve as a practice
exercise for a new Walker case intended to go to the Supreme Court
and (2) to find out whether or not the assertions made in Walker v.
United States were in fact true. This last point was accomplished
simply by reversing the position that had been held in Walker v
United States and agreeing with the political question doctrine set
forth in the ruling in that lawsuit. Because of the Supreme Court
Rules, the amicus was not allowed to be presented to the court
because no attorney licensed to practice before the court would agree
to be associated with the presentation made in the amicus. All
attorneys indicated they could not accept the conclusions as true.
The fact the amicus was never presented to the Court did not matter.
Because the attorneys had reacted so violently, it was obvious by
this reaction that what had been stated, that Congress possessed a
veto and the effect of that veto was far-reaching, so much so, as to
establish the possibility of a dictatorship in the government, that
no attorney could accept it. Thus, if the conclusions of the amicus
were false, then the opposite, that which had been asserted in Walker
v. United States, must be true. It was time for a new lawsuit.

Based on new grounds of standing,
Walker v Members of Congress was filed in 2004. The suit was
significant in several ways. First, whereas Walker v. United States
had sued Congress as a group, Walker v. Members of Congress sued the
members as individuals. This meant that each member, was required
under federal law, to individually determine their opposition to the
lawsuit and request the United States represent them opposing the
lawsuit. All members of Congress opposed the lawsuit by requesting
the government represent them. Despite the language of the complaint
which removed any member of Congress from the suit if he supported
obeying the Constitution, no member of Congress chose to obey the
Constitution. Thus, all members of Congress have publicly advocated
they oppose obeying the direct text of the Constitution and support
they having a veto of its text.

Secondly, it brought to the
attention of the courts that such refusal was a violation of several
criminal laws among them, 18 U.S.C. 1918, violation of oath of office
by federal officials. The penalty for such violation is one year in
prison and removal from office.

Finally, Walker v. Members of
Congress was significant as it was the first lawsuit in history
directly dealing with a convention call of Article V to be presented
to the Supreme Court. In October, 2006 the court denied a writ of
certiorari and thus refused to consider the case. However, the United
States, under Supreme Court Rules, had already conceded as fact and
law that it held that Congress could veto the text of the Constitution.

What was Gained
by the Lawsuits?

At first glance it would appear that
the two lawsuits were complete failures as the courts at every level
denied the lawsuit and appeared not to have ruled at all. Nothing
could be farther from the truth. Before the two lawsuits, Congress
had hidden behind what are termed in the legal world,
"laches" or the right to act as if something that is there
is not there. Congress has for years simply done nothing regarding
the convention call.

But the lawsuits changed that. True,
they were not successful in achieving the desired end that was
sought. But what they did do was force the courts to assign Congress
a position, a stance, on the issue that previously before it had been
able to avoid. The district court, in Walker v United States and
again in Walker v. Members of Congress extended what is known as the
Coleman doctrine, based on the lawsuit, Coleman v Miller, 307 U.S.
433 (1939) to include not only the amendatory process previously
controlled by Congress as stipulated by Article V, but the convention
method of amendment as well, thus giving Congress
"exclusive" control of the entire amendatory process.
Further, the courts (including the Supreme Court) endorsed the right
of Congress to "ignore or veto the direct text of the
Constitution" such that even if the Constitution stipulated that
Congress was required to take an action (such as a convention call or
hold an election, for example) it now possessed the power to refuse
to do so under what the court termed, "the political question
doctrine." Finally, by employing Coleman, the court allowed the
Congress to take actions against the state legislatures such as was
done during the civil war to compel the compliance in the
ratification vote. The court did not state at any time that the veto
of text was limited only to Article V. Indeed, as any such
stipulation would be based on authority granted the court by the
Constitution, and the court has allowed that such authority may be
vetoed, it is logical to presume such limit could not be imposed.
What we have now is a runaway Congress.

The lawsuits also established that
the actions of Congress are, in fact, criminal in nature rather than
simply a civil or political action. Thus, the refusal of the members
of Congress to call a convention not only violates the Constitution,
but is a criminal act as well.

Finally, based on the actions of the
government taken at the Supreme Court, the lawsuits established that
the above assertions are accepted by the government "as fact and
law." The Congress now has no place to hide. Their veto and
refusal to obey the Constitution is now a matter of public record.
The fact they have criminal acts is a matter of public record. The
fact that every member of Congress individually decided to oppose
obeying the Constitution is now a public fact. Congress can no longer
hide behind the walls of the Capitol Building on this issue.

It is for the above reasons that
efforts will continue to compel Congress to call a convention for the
most important reason of all---to preserve the Constitution itself.
What value are constitutional guarantees of rights if the government
does not have to obey them?

A copy of the pertinent parts of the Coleman
decision can be read here. Copies of the criminal federal laws
the members of Congress violated can be read
here. Copy of the Supreme Court rule can be read
here.

Site Links

All court documents and the
history of the suit can be found here: Main Page

The over-length brief upon which
this suit is based can read here: Brief

Interested in
what subjects will be discussed at a convention?
Want to know how many times your state has applied for a convention?
Would you like to know what amendment subjects the states have
applied for? CLICK
HERE